J. LEMISH. On Active Service in War and Peace. Politics and Ideology in the American Historical Profession. "New Hogtown Press". Toronto. 1975. IX + 150 p.

The book under review is based on the report of one of the most prominent representatives of the radical trend in American bourgeois historiography, Jesse Lemish, made at the 84th Annual Meeting of the American Historical Association (AIA) in 1969.1 The work of Lemish, now a lecturer at the State University of New York at Buffalo, which received a very wide response in the press2, was never published in the United States. As the left-wing Canadian historian T. Schofield notes in the preface, Lemish's work was distributed "clandestinely" (p. 2). As a response to the anti-Soviet book "On Active Service to Peace and War" by G. Stimson and M. Bundy published at the height of the Cold War, 3 this speech was directed against the political trend that was dominating in American bourgeois historiography during the Cold War, against those who preach American hegemonism and politics "from a position of strength", turning historiography into an ideological weapon of American expansionism. Lemish's book, Schofield notes, is "an attack on historiography and historians serving the establishment" (p. 11).

Responding to neoliberals who accused historians from the new left of presentism, Lemish emphasizes that this sin is most inherent in historians of apologetic trends, although they sometimes hide their political bias under the guise of objectivity and impartiality. All their behavior is clearly political in nature, as both the 50s and 60s clearly demonstrated.

The author examines in detail the anti-radical political and methodological attitudes of a group of prominent American bourgeois historians, such as I. Unger. Lemish objects to the charge that radical historians sacrifice the interests of science to their political beliefs. In particular, he emphasizes that in the 1940s and 1950s, left - wing historians (among them, he mentions the Marxists - F. Foner, G. Apteker) treated historical facts much more carefully and accurately than their critics. Many radical historians (for example, N. Pollack, S. Lind, and J. Lemish himself) enjoyed very high prestige at universities such as Yale and Chicago. The persecution began when the radicals joined the political struggle. The persecution was diverse: dismissal from work, exclusion from professional associations, anonymous letters, threats, the use of students for systematic surveillance of left-wing teachers, and there were also cases of physical violence (pp. 45-46). In 1966, Lemish himself was dismissed from his job for participating in the student movement. The author concludes that the one who, like Unger, denies these indisputable facts,

1 See R. E. Kantor. The New Left at the American Historical Association. Voprosy Istorii, 1972, No. 9.

2 See " Past Imperfect. Alternative Essays in American History". Ed. by B. W. Cook, A. K. Harris. Vols. 1 - 2. N. Y. 1973, Vol. 2, pp. 339 - 341.

3 H. G. Stimson, M. G. Bundy. On Active Service in Peace and War. N. У. 1948.

page 191

supports the persecution of radical historians (ibid.).

Lemish also criticizes the thesis of the "neutrality" of American historiography in the post-war period, especially during the Cold War. In his opinion, an objective and accurate assessment of the US foreign policy of these years was given not by liberals, but by radicals who exposed the barbaric behavior of the American military in Vietnam, the predatory and aggressive nature of American expansionism. This "exceptional aggressiveness" of the post-war US foreign policy was organically combined with "internal repression", which reached its greatest extent in the conditions of McCarthyism, which, as Lemish emphasizes, was a logical continuation of the domestic political course of the US ruling circles (pp. 47-48).

A large part of the work is devoted to exposing "liberal anti-communism". Lemish sees no fundamental difference between McCarthyists and liberals, who actively collaborated with government agencies in the "hunt for reds". At the height of McCarthyism, A. Schlesinger Jr., for example, called on E. Hoover to create "the best professional counterintelligence service" (p.48). Most liberal-minded scientists and teachers, hiding behind the chatter about "academic freedoms", adapted to McCarthyism. It turned out, Lemish notes, that liberals do not want the benefits of "academic freedom" to apply to all scientists, regardless of their views. They were willing to voluntarily give up their constitutional rights and pass a "loyalty test" (p. 50) just to keep their warm seats. The author cites a number of anti-communist statements made by professional organizations of American scientists, including historians. So, in March 1953. The American Association of Universities issued an anti-radical and anti-communist statement calling for the persecution of those who opposed the exclusive rights and special status of the academic elite.

This" depressing atmosphere " was compounded, according to Lemish, by the fact that liberals, in order to justify their adaptation to McCarthyism, launched theories about the "anachronism", "imprudence", and "uselessness" of all radicalism. These theories were fueled by the concepts of R. Niebuhr, Z. Freud, and E. Burke. One of the most active preachers of historical pessimism was A. Schlesinger Jr. According to the author, the latter's concepts of the "imperfection of human nature", the impossibility of overcoming its dark sides, and the futility of active activity in the name of progress were in line with McCarthyist ideology. Lemish contrasts these theories with his own point of view: he believes that the type of human relations is determined by society. Human nature is comprehensible and can be changed by changing the environment in which a person lives (p. 55). The appeal to "human nature" formed, according to Lemish, the methodological basis of the anti-radical ideology, which became particularly widespread during the Cold War.

Lemish examines the conclusions of Niebuhr and A. Schlesinger Jr. about the specificity of American history, which, as they claimed, is characterized by "stability"," balance of organized authorities", and"economic balance". He also criticizes the concept of "consensual interests", emphasizing that it was" a central element of the ideology of the 50s " (p.56). According to Lemish, the concepts of "balanced power", "political pluralism"," plurality of elites", and de-ideologization functioned in the same vein, since they are based on the thesis that the era of pragmatic and" non-political " resolution of the supposedly few conflicts that still exist in American society has begun. The author strongly condemns the concept of "the end of ideology", pointing out that it was directed against the growing political radicalization of the masses and their active participation in public life.

The 60s showed the inconsistency of the concept of the "end of ideology", dispelling the myths about" stability"," social harmony", and"consensus". This "concept" was useless... it has never provided an adequate representation of reality" (p. 59). But the strongest blow to the concept of the "end of ideology", according to Lemish, was inflicted by the mass anti-war movement, which, in contrast to the claims of liberals about the alleged conservatism of the masses, showed that "the people are you-

page 192

peace is being taken, while the ruling elite is waging war" (p. 62). Historical research should, according to Lemish, answer "fundamental questions about the political behavior of the elite and the masses" (p. 63), but this requires a study of mass movements and a critical analysis of the behavior of the ruling elite.

The author critically examines the "works" of major American bourgeois historians-D. Boorstein, A. Nevins, O. Handlin and others, who "rewrote" the main plots of American history in the spirit of the" cold war "and"consensus". Boorstin, for example, painted an idealized picture of Puritan society in colonial Massachusetts. In this regard, Lemish notes that the notorious ideological homogeneity of this colony was achieved by expelling those who did not share the principles of the ruling elite (pp. 74-75). Boorstin and his followers are characterized by a frank desire to discredit any revolutionary radicalism as a manifestation of the "dark sides of human nature." Their writings called for adapting to the orders and institutions created by the ruling classes, including the cold War and internal reaction. The author considers it quite natural that the position of the "business school"was strengthened during the Cold War. He mentions the contribution of the Marxists (G. Apteker) to the criticism of these "laureates of imperialism" (p.87).

Lemish writes about the desire of anti-radical forces to unite. Anti-radicals were met with hostility by the collection of" new left "historians" Towards a new past " 4 . The anti-consensual, democratic attitudes of young radical historians caused rage among representatives of apologetic trends, although objectively these attitudes in most cases did not go beyond a certain development of the views and concepts of the progressive school, with which the radicals are genetically related.

Lemish's work ends with the following words:: "The left will oppose all this (we are talking about the pro-government and anti-radical speeches of Commander, Handlin, Nevins, Boorstin, Schlesinger, Morison, etc. - R. K.) with a real alternative, which consists in exposing the trivial American political pragmatism. Fire us, expel us, imprison us, we won't quit... We will not allow you to pass yourself off as a politically neutral figure... It is not for you, who legitimize barbarism, to teach us civility" (p. 117).

Both Lemish's report and Schofield's foreword provide a better understanding of both the strengths and weaknesses of the new Left, which itself is not sufficiently consistent in its critique of presentism, a trend typical of modern bourgeois historiography. Often these criticisms of the "new left" are nothing more than a response to the attacks of apologetic historiography, and in some cases they tend to take a position "above the fray" instead of offering a truly scientific solution to the most acute problems of modern history, to carry out a truly fundamental critique of apologetic concepts of American history.

A considerable time has passed since Lemish's report. However, as Schofield points out, the material contained in the report remains relevant today, since it deals with the most important areas that are still strong in American bourgeois historiography (pp. 6, 7). Polemics with the" new left " - both on the pages of scientific and political periodicals and in fundamental publications-do not stop 5 . New works by radicals are also being published. Their speeches left a deep mark on American bourgeois historiography. The problem of "academic freedoms" also remains urgent. The same Schofield cites numerous facts of persecution of scientists and students. While acknowledging the decline of the "new left" movement, he writes that this should not give the impression that the university campuses are completely calm. When people say that "the new left movement is dead", they often keep silent, he notes, about the fact that its representatives were actually expelled from universities. This happened, for example, with G. Kolko, who was forced to leave the State University of New York at Buffalo. Here, in May 1975, the following persons were arrested:-

4 "Toward the New Past". Boston. 1968.

5 See, for example, B. Sternsher. Consensus, Conflict and American Historians. Bloomington and L. 1975, pp. 275 - 336.

page 193

vano 10 students for supporting victims of political repression. University administrations eliminate student self-government, use violence against students, and disperse student self-government bodies. Schofield cites facts from 1975 about student performances at the University of California, San Jose, Lehman College (New York), the Universities of Massachusetts, Boston, and other locations. These speeches end with political repression, the dismissal of radicals, and so on.The FBI plays a significant role in the fight against dissident teachers.

"None of this is historical," Schofield said. - Repression is still a part of everyday life" (p. 33). At the end of 1974, the Special Committee on the Rights of Historians of the AIA gave examples of restrictions on academic freedoms, encroachments on the rights of historians as researchers, and injustices committed by the authorities and university management (pp. 25-26). These facts shed additional light on the real situation with "academic freedoms" in the United States.

page 194

Permanent link to this publication: